D&D 5E What will 5E D&D be remembered for?

[Iry]

DM empowerment is a factor for those who experienced the effects of a Domination spell, the one cast on the DM across the last two editions.

I feel like that was 2E and 3E. 4E was really kind to DMs. Cut down my prep time dramatically.

 

[Wuzzard]

Its not that DM's were required to RAW only. It was the DM's power only ever existed because the players at the table (including DM) gifted that power to the DM for the sake of the game. When 4e came out, the prevailing consensus was for player entitlement via clear and reliable rules & rulings; no DM's fiat, everyone should play the same (mostly) and RAW was king (or even RAI). How many times did discussion on 'the boards' get reduced to arguments like "well, if the character has a power, it should always work, otherwise that would be gimping the character, and it would be like robbing the player's fun." Player's read these and had these same arguments. The consensus became, lets just play it as close to RAW as possible, otherwise the internet tells us we're not having fun. You know, because balance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Its not that DM's were required to RAW only. It was the DM's power only ever existed because the players at the table (including DM) gifted that power to the DM for the sake of the game.

Nothing could ever stop a DM from running his game exactly as he pleased. He may or may not be able to find players wanting to play in exactly that game, but you can always go there, regardless of edition. You don't have to find a game that /needs/ DM intervention to justify DM intervention if your players actually want to play in the kind of game you want to run.

When 4e came out, the prevailing consensus was for player entitlement via clear and reliable rules

Calling that 'player entitlement' has always been off (and, obviously, negative and prejudicial). It'd be at least as accurate, and less judgmental, so say that 3.x & 4e 'empowered' players with a wealth of character build and in-play options. Maybe empowered in different ways, 3.5 offering the greatest rewards for system mastery, for instance.

How many times did discussion on 'the boards' get reduced to arguments like "well, if the character has a power, it should always work, otherwise that would be gimping the character, and it would be like robbing the player's fun."

Any ability should always do what it says it does, otherwise what's the point of choosing it? Even if you take a wild surge ability, you expect it'll be wild, and would be disappointed if it was consistent. The only difference was how clearly-defined powers were compared to old-school spells. With powers, the wiggle-room was in the fluff text. If you didn't avail yourself of that flexibility, you could get incongruous results.

The consensus became, lets just play it as close to RAW as possible, otherwise the internet tells us we're not having fun. You know, because balance.

Balance is generally a good thing, if you want to play in a game that doesn't suck. If you want to play in a great game, you need to go beyond balance. Sometime there's this odd perception that you can't shoot for a great game unless you start with a system that's broken, like you need the excuse of fixing the system to gain the degrees of freedom to create an exceptional experience.

no DM's fiat, everyone should play the same (mostly) and RAW was king

The whole RAW thing started and peaked in the 3.5 years. Iron Rule of RAW, RAW-uber-alles, whatever you want to call it. RAW was not just king but much-debated, because it wasn't always that clear, and there could be a real advantage to getting 'RAW' to say what you wanted it to (and Customer Service was about as dependable as Augury, that way). Long arguments would be spawned just over who's interpretation was RAW vs RAI vs 'just a house rule.'


Now, in 5e, the pendulum has swung from player-empowerment to DM empowerment. Even though that's just how it was before 3e came out, that return to the DM being responsible for his own campaign in just about every way, including imposing some sort of balance on classes and/or encounters (or not) is a big deal.

I feel like that was 2E and 3E. 4E was really kind to DMs. Cut down my prep time dramatically.

Very true. I think his point was that being 'too easy' that way also made it easy to just sort of phone it in. Nobility of struggle and all.

 

[feartheminotaur]

...as the last physical Official D&D product.

Say what you want about 4e, but we played for years without buying a single thing (beyond the DDI account). Character gen, updated (with Errata!) compendiums for every rule, item, monster, and power...if the VTT had taken off, we wouldn't have a 5e. Heck, when 5e came out every other thread on the WOTC boards was "when are we going to get digital content?"

I'd say the failure of the digital component of 4e is the primary reason 5e went back to its pen and paper roots. The next iteration will almost assuredly be all digital though.

 

[Istbor]

Very true. I think his point was that being 'too easy' that way also made it easy to just sort of phone it in. Nobility of struggle and all.

You haven't crafted a good adventure/campaign if your fingers are free of paper-cuts and your eyes aren't bleeding from over reading text!

I would say, of 5e, Bounded Accuracy and Advantage/disadvantage.

Personally, this has the past 3 editions beat in ease and enjoyment of play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You haven't crafted a good adventure/campaign if your fingers are free of paper-cuts and your eyes aren't bleeding from over reading text!

lol

I would say, of 5e, Bounded Accuracy and Advantage/disadvantage.
Personally, this has the past 3 editions beat in ease and enjoyment of play.

The last 3? Going back to 2e, or are you counting Essentials?

Enjoyment, of course, is always subjective. 'Easy' can be, too - something simple but unfamiliar can initially seem harder than something complicated & balky but with familiar work-arounds - but 'ease' is also often inversely related to empowerment. Building a 3e character could be quite an undertaking, even if just a new character at 1st level, you might need to plan the build in advance to whatever level you anticipated the campaign reaching (on-line, level 20 builds were practically expected), but if you had mastered the system, you got what you wanted at the end of the process. In 5e, you have far fewer choices to leverage, though you still might run into issues of needing to plan in advance, since not every class can readily revise choices made at earlier levels. And the play experience, itself, on the player side, can consist of little more than listening to descriptions, declaring actions (whether formally or in the natural course of RP), and making checks when called for.

It's harder on the DM, that way, but if you have the experience (and/or talent) to handle it, I find, it's a very rewarding way to run the game.

 

[Wuzzard]

Nothing could ever stop a DM from running his game exactly as he pleased. He may or may not be able to find players wanting to play in exactly that game, but you can always go there, regardless of edition. You don't have to find a game that /needs/ DM intervention to justify DM intervention if your players actually want to play in the kind of game you want to run.

Yes, this certainly is true. There is nothing particularly in the books that tell you to play RAW is king, etc. But then why did so many players decide that it should be played this way? Why had opinions shifted? I don't know. I blame the internet and video games, but I have no evidence. All my players played MMO's and by that time were MMO board hounds as well, and I guess the 'truth' about balance, etc, was all the rage; at least at the tables I played at.

Calling that 'player entitlement' has always been off (and, obviously, negative and prejudicial). It'd be at least as accurate, and less judgmental, so say that 3.x & 4e 'empowered' players with a wealth of character build and in-play options. Maybe empowered in different ways, 3.5 offering the greatest rewards for system mastery, for instance.

Right again. I let slip my true bias! I forgot that entitlement carried its negative connotation and should have used empowerment. But.. but.. some of those players.. man.. entitled is really the best adjective for them.

Any ability should always do what it says it does, otherwise what's the point of choosing it? Even if you take a wild surge ability, you expect it'll be wild, and would be disappointed if it was consistent. The only difference was how clearly-defined powers were compared to old-school spells. With powers, the wiggle-room was in the fluff text. If you didn't avail yourself of that flexibility, you could get incongruous results.

Maybe I'm just more comfortable with an interpretive game, than to have everything so absolute, no wiggle room. I like to be able to establish environmental conditions and have them matter. Or plot-centric ones that are not immediately undone by some player ability. I like to be able to establish that in Barovia, players cannot just teleport away, without it breaking down into rules arguments and aggrieved players because they feel cheated out of their fun. The DM should be empowered to change the conditions and have that trump the players power card.

Balance is generally a good thing, if you want to play in a game that doesn't suck. If you want to play in a great game, you need to go beyond balance. Sometime there's this odd perception that you can't shoot for a great game unless you start with a system that's broken, like you need the excuse of fixing the system to gain the degrees of freedom to create an exceptional experience.

I was just using balance as one of the justifications used at the time for sticking to RAW. Too little balance is bad. Too much balance is bad. Need to find the happy medium.

The whole RAW thing started and peaked in the 3.5 years. Iron Rule of RAW, RAW-uber-alles, whatever you want to call it. RAW was not just king but much-debated, because it wasn't always that clear, and there could be a real advantage to getting 'RAW' to say what you wanted it to (and Customer Service was about as dependable as Augury, that way). Long arguments would be spawned just over who's interpretation was RAW vs RAI vs 'just a house rule.'

You are probably right here too. My experience was that at the tables I played at it hadn't reached the tipping point yet. Maybe near the end of 3.5 the momentum had gotten large enough that it is was a major influencer of the next version's design. I don't know. Maybe there were other groups out there riding the wave. I tell you what though. Even with 5e, many of the players still live and die over RAW. And that's fine. I just feel empowered now not to be a slave to it.

Now, in 5e, the pendulum has swung from player-empowerment to DM empowerment. Even though that's just how it was before 3e came out, that return to the DM being responsible for his own campaign in just about every way, including imposing some sort of balance on classes and/or encounters (or not) is a big deal.

I think the game is better for it. Though, maybe not for the players that want as much balance as possible and want it all baked in and correct.

 

[Kithas]

The edition I finally got to play. Been wanting to play d&d for 6years finally found a group.

Alternatively; 2.5gallons of alchemist's fire usually does the trick.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But then why did so many players decide that it should be played this way? Why had opinions shifted?

Sometimes there's no explaining zietgiest, but, JMHO, 3e started the RAW trend because it had these built-in (according to Cook) 'rewards for system mastery.' If you let your DM 'get away' with changing and over-ruling the system, those rewards could be under-mined. Maybe the surfeit of 3pp product also contributed, on the DM side, to wanting to stick to a tighter, more consistent core rulesset?
In 4e the trend of playing 'by the book' continued, but for a different reason, because the rules were so much clearer, there weren't so many big 'RAW' debates. Also contributing, perhaps, was the comparatively responsive issuing of errata (as contrasted to how dicey 3e Customer service inquiries were).

I blame the internet and video games, but I have no evidence.

OK, that's funny.

Right again. I let slip my true bias! I forgot that entitlement carried its negative connotation and should have used empowerment. But.. but.. some of those players.. man.. entitled is really the best adjective for them.

Sure. Easy rule of thumb, use entitlement for both (players in 3e/4e, DMs in classic/5e) or use empowerment for both.

Maybe I'm just more comfortable with an interpretive game, than to have everything so absolute, no wiggle room. I like to be able to establish environmental conditions and have them matter.

The wiggle room was in the fluff. And, you could absolutely establish whatever environmental conditions you wanted - exception based design and all.

Or plot-centric ones that are not immediately undone by some player ability. I like to be able to establish that in Barovia, players cannot just teleport away, without it breaking down into rules arguments and aggrieved players because they feel cheated out of their fun. The DM should be empowered to change the conditions and have that trump the players power card.

Poor example, since Teleport whether the ritual or as a movement power, was pretty well trumped to begin with. Actually, there aren't a lot of good examples, since powers weren't game- or story-breaking the way spells have tended to be.

I was just using balance as one of the justifications used at the time for sticking to RAW. Too little balance is bad. Too much balance is bad. Need to find the happy medium.

There's no such thing as 'too much balance' - too much of the things sometimes held up as extreme examples of balance, isn't balance at all. For instance, a game with no choices, where everyone plays an identical character, is not an example of 'too much balance,' (though it's perfectly fair) but of none at all, because balance maximizes choice. Look at the range of distinct characters you could theoretically play in 3e vs 4e, for instance. There's unequivocally more in 3e, and by no small margin, heck, probably by orders of magnitude - it was around longer, had more material produced, and had greater granularity. But, how many of those distinct characters could remain relevant in a campaign where there were optimized Tier 1 classes stomping around? Some, but a very small percentage to be identified & honed by meticulous system mastery.

I tell you what though. Even with 5e, many of the players still live and die over RAW. And that's fine. I just feel empowered now not to be a slave to it.

I don't agree that it's fine - 5e really lives and breathes DM empowerment, I'd hate to think anyone's trying to run it RAW. :shudder:

I think the game is better for it. Though, maybe not for the players that want as much balance as possible and want it all baked in and correct.

That wouldn't be better, then, but actually I agree that 5e is better for a capable DM taking full advantage of all that empowerment. Take it behind the screen, run it as described in the most basic outline of play on, and you can make what you want of it. If what you want is for your players to have a great time, you can make that happen. Even if they were hoping for a balanced game with an expectation of player agency, you can often produce enough of an illusion of choice to get them to enjoy it in spite of themselves.

 

[Shasarak]

Being the last edition of D&D.

Partly because it's structured to be an 'ever-green' edition intended to last a long time, and partly because TTRPGs are becoming an ever-more-niche interest. I doubt that it will be worth Hasbro's investment to do a new edition in a decade's time; more likely, they'll just reissue the same books with new artwork (if even that).

I really really hope that no one said it was going to be an 'ever-green' edition because those words do not mean what you think they mean.